Re: [Unbearable] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-tokbind-https-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

> On Jun 26, 2018, at 1:54 PM, Andrei Popov <Andrei.Popov@microsoft.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Ben,
> 
> Thanks for the review.
> 
>> Are the “applications” from paragraph 3 the same as those from paragraph 2?
> 
> Yes, the same throughout paragraphs 1, 2 and 3.
> 
>> It seems like paragraph 2 is talking more about local APIs (at least, I see that was mentioned in the text in version 17 but not in 18), but paragraph 3 uses an example of a signal from a server. (I can accept that the difference in control may be weak enough for web applications that the distinction does not matter.)
> 
> The APIs provided by the TB implementation and called by the application are local APIs.
> The application needs to make a decision whether to request that the TB implementation include a Referred binding in the TB message or not.
> In the example, the server provides a signal to the application using the Include-Referred-Token-Binding-ID HTTP response header.
> The signal could be different, or an application may have out-of-band ways to determine this (e.g. a local database of RP->IDP associations).

I just re-read the 3rd paragraph, and I think I missed the “then” in “which then signals” on the first reading. It’s fine as is.

Thanks!

Ben.

> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Andrei
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2018 11:41 AM
> To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
> Cc: Dirk Balfanz <balfanz=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>; draft-ietf-tokbind-https@ietf.org; Tokbind WG <unbearable@ietf.org>; The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>; John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com>; tokbind-chairs@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Unbearable] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-tokbind-https-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> 
> Hi, thanks for the pointer.
> 
> The text in version 18 is sufficient to clear my discuss. I have one remaining (or maybe new) non-blocking question for section 6:
> 
> Are the “applications” from paragraph 3 the same as those from paragraph 2? It seems like paragraph 2 is talking more about local APIs (at least, I see that was mentioned in the text in version 17 but not in 18), but paragraph 3 uses an example of a signal from a server. (I can accept that the difference in control may be weak enough for web applications that the distinction does not matter.)
> 
> I did not check my editorial comments.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Ben.
> 
>> On Jun 25, 2018, at 6:30 PM, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Ben,
>> 
>> Does the following new text address your concern:
>> https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/cgi-bin/xml2rfc.cgi?modeAsFormat=html/a
>> scii&url=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/TokenBinding/Internet-Draft
>> s/master/draft-ietf-tokbind-https-18.xml
>> 
>> 
>> On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 1:26 PM, Dirk Balfanz <balfanz=40google..com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>> Hi Ben,
>> 
>> thanks for the feedback. Most of it is addressed in the new draft (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tokbind-https-16). See below (inline) for details.
>> 
>> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 1:38 PM Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> wrote:
>> Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
>> draft-ietf-tokbind-https-14: Discuss
>> 
>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut
>> this introductory paragraph, however.)
>> 
>> 
>> Please refer to
>> https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>> 
>> 
>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tokbind-https/
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> DISCUSS:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> I plan to ballot "YES", but I want to clear up once concern first:
>> 
>> After reading section 6 several times, I don't know what it means. I
>> think it's [...]
>> 
>> Addressed in new draft.
>> 
>> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> Substantive Comments:
>> 
>> §1.1: Please consider using the boilerplate from 8174 across the
>> cluster. Both this and the protocol draft have lower case keyword instances.
>> 
>> Addressed in new draft.
>> 
>> 
>> §8.2:
>> - Does it really make sense to wait for a user to request the keys be expired?
>> I suspect the average user does this about never. Did the working
>> group discuss possibly making the keys default to expiring after some period of time?
>> 
>> Yes, we did discuss it. This was chosen consciously to be in sync with cookies and their expirations / manual user-initiated purges.
>> 
>> - Why
>> is the SHOULD in paragraph 2 not a MUST?
>> 
>> Addressed in new draft.
>> 
>> 
>> Editorial Comments:
>> 
>> §2:
>> - Paragraph 1: "The ABNF of the Sec-Token-Binding header field is (in
>> [RFC7230] style, see also Section 8.3 of [RFC7231]):" The open parenthesis before "in"
>> seems misplaced. Also, as written the comma after "style" creates a
>> comma splice. (Note that this pattern occurs elsewhere in the
>> document.)
>> 
>> - Paragraph 3: The paragraph is a single hard-to-parse sentence.
>> Please consider breaking into simpler sentences.
>> 
>> Addressed in new draft.
>> 
>> 
>> - example: Am I correct to assume the backslashes are just for print
>> purposes and are not in the actual message? If so, please mention that.
>> 
>> Addressed in new draft.
>> 
>> 
>> § 2.1:
>> - first paragraph, "Within the latter context...": There was no former context.
>> I suggest "Within that context..."
>> 
>> Addressed in new draft.
>> 
>> - 2nd paragraph: The first sentence is hard to parse. I suggest
>> breaking it into separate paragraphs, or restructure without the
>> center-imbedding.
>> 
>> Addressed in new draft.
>> 
>> - 2nd to last paragraph: Does "SHOULD generally"
>> mean the same as just "SHOULD"?
>> 
>> Addressed in new draft.
>> 
>> 
>> §5.1: 2nd paragraph: Unneeded comma in "... itself, to another server..."
>> 
>> Addressed in new draft.
>> 
>> 
>> §5.2,
>> - last bullet: " (between client and Token Consumer)" seems more than
>> parenthetical. Please consider removing the parentheses.
>> 
>> Addressed in new draft.
>> 
>> - paragraph after last
>> bullet: The parenthetical phrase starting with "(proving
>> possession...) is quite long and makes the sentence hard to parse.
>> Given that the concept is covered in the immediately preceding paragraph, can it be removed?
>> 
>> Addressed in new draft.
>> 
>> 
>> §7.1 and §7.2: These sections seem to be copied from (or restate
>> requirements
>> in) the protocol and negotiation drafts. Can they be included by
>> reference instead, or at least attributed?
>> 
>> Addressed in new draft.
>> 
>> 
>> §7.2, 2nd paragraph: This seams like a restatement of §7.1.
>> 
>> Addressed in new draft.
>> 
>> 
>> §8.3: Unneeded comma in first sentence.
>> 
>> Addressed in new draft.
>> 
>> Thanks again for the thoughtful comments!
>> 
>> Dirk.
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Unbearable mailing list
>> Unbearable@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/unbearable
>> 
>> 
> 

Re: [Unbearable] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-tokbind-https-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Attachment: signature.asc